yes, imprison children and their parents for stealing widescreen tv's, burning and looting shops, but let blair, brown, bush, obama, pearl, rumsfeld, cheney, wolferwitz, cameron and clegg free for bombing and invading afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, yemen and libya. destroying schools, hospitals, universities, power stations, bridges, roads, sewarage works and all manner of infrastructure and kill civilians by the hundreds of thousands all based on lies and deciept. yes, excellent hipocracy here. lay waste our industrial heretage and throw millions out of work with no future, training or education while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
take away all pensions and benefits and blame the disenchanted have nots for criminality and opportunism. like i said a couple of years ago "there is a steam train headed are way" and "you aint seen nothing yet". doo doo
Come on GnV, I expected better of you than that?
Is he wrong?
N x x x ;)
Is who wrong Neil? Staggers or Gulsonroad?
Actually it doesn't really matter as they are both expressing their point of view which others may well not agree with.
Obviously your viewpoint will dictate who you believe to be right but again others may see things differently. So who's to say who's right and who's wrong?
As much as people keep banging on about the bankers, no matter how immoral they may have acted, they did not ( as far as I'm aware) break any laws. The executive of the banks were very probably guilty of gross negligence but can that really be equated with rioting, looting, killing innocent people and burning people's homes and businesses to the ground?.
Can peoples protesting against and trying to overthrow long standing dictatorships be equated against rioters, looters, murderers and arsonists?
Obviously Gulson thinks so.
Max, either of them, or both? Whichever of them is prepared to defend a point of view? Guess I was driving at that whole 'expressing a point of view' thing meself?
I guess I was just asking GnV to play the ball, and not the man, which is what he appeared to be doing. It's the first refuge of someone with nothing to say. T'is ironic really, someone pulling someone else up in a pedantic kinda way on their literary skill, who then resorts to posting a picture they found on the internet by way of the last word? It begs the question, what's the point of posting that then? They could equally well choose not to post anything at all, and it would make as much of a contribution? i.e. None whatsoever.
N x x x ;)
Well neil, in a kinda pedantic sort of way, what Staggs wrote (and I do appreciate and respect his views from time to time) was closer to the mark than was comfortable. Not by way of apology, excuse or regret but more by way of explanation, the posting he was responding to was way too rushed and not to my usual cutting edge standard.
But, being brutally frank, after thinking about his contribution for a few days (following the SH guidelines) and then measuring it against my long time held view that gulson is a phucking fruitcake, I decided I couldn't be arsed to explain myself or give further credence to gulson's various idiotic ramblings and that it really wasn't worth the effort.
I was actually looking for a "hands up" smiley for Staggs benefit to acknowledge his point but couldn't find one suitable that would convey the correct meaning. In the course of looking however, I came across the one I posted and as it reminded me of tweeky it seemed appropriate.
A bit like the thread itself really; it morphed into something else. But you are quite right neil, I have nothing further to say about gulson and I am angry with myself for breaking an earlier pledge not to make any further postings about his ridiculous claims.
